Justice Onnoghen In The Eye Of Buhari’s War On Democracy

We have people like Prof. Wole Soyinka to thank for a ‘born
again’ democrat like Buhari as democratically elected president of
Nigeria. Wole was the man who said people familiar with the man’s
conversion told him that Buhari the Despot had repented and was now
a born again democrat. You can re-read Soyinka’s Challenge of
Change, Burden of Choice, it’s everywhere on the internet.

Now we have the measure of Buhari’s conversion. But more to the
point, we should know to trust an avowed animist agnostic when he
employs the tropes of Christianity to describe the conversion of a
Muslim fundamentalist. Maybe the joke was on us. We can leave Wole
to rue his fallibility every time he looks in the mirror and sees
wrinkled change.

But that is a luxury the rest of us can hardly share at this
moment of our nation’s history as lightweight democracy finds
herself in the ring, with a heavyweight champion of despotic
absolutism fighting without regard to boxing rules.

Buhari’s pregnant silence as a documented minion of his rushed
allegations of corruption against the nation’s No. 1 Judge
underlines the seriousness of this assault. Let no man deceive you
that the President is not aware r the Vice President is unaware.
Are they both sleeping on duty? They are both in on this, both feet
first!
What should our Honourable Chief Justice do? First, he must realize
that he is fighting for all of us; the little men who won’t even
get a honourable mention if they were the direct victims of this
kind of assault. Therefore, he must make no mistakes in his
response to this prize fighter, a man of war from his youth.

In this regard, I would refer him to another Chief Justice who
had the uncommon honour of taking on the absolutist antics of
another anti-democratic prize fighter from a sister common law
jurisdiction; I mean Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudry of
Pakhistan.

Justice Chaudry was called to the bar in 1976, he became a Judge
of the Supreme Court in 2002 and was made Chief Justice of
Pakhistan in 2005 by General Pervez Muharref. However, in March
2007, Pervez Musharef asked him to resign as Chief Justice of
Pakhistan, an offer he rejected and was ‘suspended’ from office by
the anti-democratic champion. But the legal profession took to the
streets and marched against the forces opposed to democracy. In the
end General Musharref caved in and accepted Chief Justice Iftikhar
as head of the Pakhistani Supreme Court.

But that was not the end. In November of 2007, President
Musharref declared a state of emergency and arrested Justice
Iftikhar and suspended over 60 judges. Justice Iftikhar remained
unbowed, even in detention. He granted several interviews which
were smuggled out of his place of detention. Elections were held
the next year 2008 and Musharref lost.

There are many uncanny similarities between the experiences of
Justice Iftikhar and Justice Onnoghen. First, Musharraf demanded
Iftikhar’s resignation based on a petition alleging corruption and
interference with the executive branch. You need to read Mr.
Aghanya’s petition to see that the people behind this assault on
the precincts of democracy are copy typists.

Anyway, Justice Iftikhar refused to resign, he also refused to
appear before the judicial body to which Musharraf referred the
matter, instead he sued Musharraf before the Supreme Court and won.
More, importantly, while his case was going on he boldly travelled
around Pakhistan addressing bar associations.

The Pakhistani bar also organized road marches from day to day
for months. The price of democracy is eternal vigilance, they
say.

Alleging that judges are corrupt is not news anymore. Indeed,
there are corrupt judges as there are corrupt presidents. But when
a man who is supposed to file an asset declaration does so and
indicates that he mistakenly omitted something in his earlier
declaration which he is now openly declaring and corrects his
mistake, that is not corruption. But if a president or his vice
president gives his consent for the no.1 judge of his country to be
removed on such flimsy grounds, that sir is the real
corruption.

It appears that Justice Onnoghen has taken the first step of
refusing to resign as demanded by the President’s obnoxious
minions. He should openly refuse. Then he must take the next step
of addressing the bar and then the nation.

He must realize that as a justice of the Supreme Court, he is
now confronted with a policy situation of the court. Whatever he
does or does not do has political implications, ranging from
independence of the judiciary to survival of democracy.

Archibald Cox, the US Solicitor General under President Kennedy,
Harvard Professor of Law and Independent Counsel in the Watergate
investigation of President Nixon said in his seminal work, The Role
of the Supreme Court in American Society, that the Supreme Court
has both judicial and policy responsibilities. Whenever the court
or a justice has to think about the impact of his decision on
society it/he is undertaking a policy consideration. No justice of
the court can ignore the policy considerations of the court and
expect the court to remain relevant for long.

This is the moment when the Nigerian Supreme Court must
determine its relevance to democracy. It is not surprising that
when Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudry defied President Musharraf in
Pakhistan, he went on to be celebrated as an icon of democracy
receiving many honours from around the world. His resistance
reinvigorated the Pakhistani Supreme Court and made it truly
independent.

With the Amina Zakari Saga, the Idris Kpotum Saga and now this,
the ‘born again’ democrat must be taught the virtues of true
conversion.

Emmanuel Jakpa, a legal practitioner wrote in
from Warri, Delta State.